Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV11897, Date: 2023-10-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV11897 Hearing Date: October 2, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On April 7, 2022, Plaintiff Audrey Peters (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Cameron David Arthur Herber (“Herber”), BC2 Environmental, LLC (“BC2”), and Does 1-20 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On August 23, 2022, Herber and BC2 (“Defendants”) find an answer.
On January 25, 2023 and February 1, 2023, Defendants filed notices of related cases stating that this case was related to Los Angeles Superior Court case number 22TRCV00997 (Audrey Gayl Peters vs. Stacia Elizabeth Trimmer). The Court did not rule on the requests to deem the cases related, apparently because the case number provided for the related case was incorrect. Defendants did not file a corrected notice of related cases.
On April 19, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to consolidate this case with Los Angeles Superior Court case number 22TRCV00996 (Audrey Gayl Peters vs. Stacia Elizabeth Trimmer). The Court denied the request because the cases were pending in different departments and had not been deemed related cases. (Local Rule 3.3(g).)
On August 2, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to coordinate this case with Los Angeles Superior Court case number 22TRCV00996 (Audrey Gayl Peters vs. Stacia Elizabeth Trimmer). The motion is set for hearing on October 2, 2023.
Trial is current scheduled for April 18, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUEST
Defendants request that the Court coordinate this case with case number 22TRCV00996.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 403 provides:
“A judge may, on motion, transfer an action or actions from another court to that judge’s court for coordination with an action involving a common question of fact or law within the meaning of Section 404. The motion shall be supported by a declaration stating facts showing that the actions meet the standards specified in Section 404.1, are not complex as defined by the Judicial Council and that the moving party has made a good faith effort to obtain agreement to the transfer from all parties to each action. Notice of the motion shall be served on all parties to each action and on each court in which an action is pending. Any party to that action may file papers opposing the motion within the time permitted by rule of the Judicial Council. The court to which a case is transferred may order the cases consolidated for trial pursuant to Section 1048 without any further motion or hearing.
“The Judicial Council may adopt rules to implement this section, including rules prescribing procedures for preventing duplicative or conflicting transfer orders issued by different courts.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 403.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 404.1 provides:
“Coordination of civil actions sharing a common question of fact or law is appropriate if one judge hearing all of the actions for all purposes in a selected site or sites will promote the ends of justice taking into account whether the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant to the litigation; the convenience of parties, witnesses, and counsel; the relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel; the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and manpower; the calendar of the courts; the disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments; and, the likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination be denied.”
California Rules of Court, rule 3.500, provides in part:
“A motion to transfer an action under Code of Civil Procedure section 403 must conform to the requirements generally applicable to motions, and must be supported by a declaration stating facts showing that:
"(1) The actions are not complex;
"(2) The moving party has made a good-faith effort to obtain agreement to the transfer and consolidation from all parties to the actions; and
"(3) The moving party has notified all parties of their obligation to disclose to the court any information they may have concerning any other motions requesting transfer of any case that would be affected by the granting of the motion before the court."
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.500(c).)
Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 3.3(h) provides in part:
(LASC Local Rule 3.3(h).)
DISCUSSION
Defendants ask the Court to coordinate this case (22STCV11897) with case number 22TRCV00996 by transferring case number 22TRCV00996 from the Inglewood Courthouse, where it is pending, to the Spring Street Courthouse, where this case (22STCV11897) is pending.
The Inglewood courthouse belongs to the Southwest Judicial District of Los Angeles. The Spring Street Courthouse belongs to the Central Judicial District of Los Angeles. Therefore, Defendants are required to comply with Local Rule 3.3(h), which provides that “Coordination motions seeking to transfer a case or cases to the Central District shall be filed and heard in Department 1.”
The Court denies the motion without prejudice to filing a motion in Department 1.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES the motion to coordinate cases filed by Defendants Cameron David Arthur Herber and BC2 Environmental, LLC without prejudice.
Moving parties are are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving parties are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.